On the basis of prior work integrating attachment theory and terror management theory, the authors propose a model of a tripartite security system consisting of dynamically interrelated attachment, self-esteem, and worldview processes. Four studies are presented that, combined with existing evidence, support the prediction derived from the model that threats to one component of the security system result in compensatory defensive activation of other components. Further, the authors predicted and found that individual differences in attachment style moderate the defenses. In Studies 1 and 2, attachment threats motivated worldview defense among anxiously attached participants and motivated self-enhancement (especially among avoidant participants), effects similar to those caused by mortality salience. In Studies 3 and 4, a worldview threat and a self-esteem threat caused attachment-related proximity seeking among fearful participants and avoidance of proximity among dismissing participants. The authors' model provides an overarching framework within which to study attachment, self-esteem, and worldviews.

No abstract

Three studies examined women's reactions to ostensibly protective restrictions. In Study 1, only benevolently sexist women accepted a protectively justified (hypothetical) prohibition against driving on a long trip, but only when imposed by a husband (not a coworker). In Study 2, when women's actual romantic partners opposed their participation in a practicum counseling dangerous men, most reacted positively to a personalized protective justification ("I am concerned for your safety"), but only benevolently sexist women reacted positively when no justification was given. In Study 3, only benevolently sexist women accepted an explicitly group-based protective justification ("It is not safe for any woman") for a partner's imagined opposition to an internship that involved interviewing criminals. By fusing benevolence with dominance, protective paternalism can lead women (especially those who are high on benevolent sexism) to accept restrictions.

No abstract

According to theories of "psychological defense," humans are motivated to protect themselves against various types of psychological threat, including death awareness, uncertainty, and other inherently anxiety-provoking experiences. Protective mechanisms include strengthening close relationships; maintaining appraisals of self-worth, accomplishment, and agency; and cultivating meaningful views of the world. Thus, defensiveness theories incorporate research from many areas of psychology (e.g., information-processing biases, attitudes, and interpersonal and intergroup relations), to help explain why people think, feel, and act in the diverse ways that they do. Currently, the study of psychological defense is hindered by contradictory empirical results and a proliferation of theories that make very similar predictions. This article examines a cross-section of defensiveness theories and research, highlighting conclusions that can be drawn and areas where conceptual and research problems linger. It suggests that the field needs methodological innovation (e.g., more reliable and valid manipulations and measures of unconscious constructs, more diverse methodological approaches), a more complete and reliable body of data, and some fresh new ideas from psychological scientists across disciplines.